Federal Judge Rules Against ICE Detentions Based on Race, Language, and Job Location

A federal judge ruled on Friday that immigration agents cannot rely solely on race, language, or job location as grounds for reasonable suspicion to conduct detention stops. Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong, of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, issued two temporary restraining orders (TROs) addressing these practices in the case of Perdomo, et al. v. Noem, et al.

The first TRO directs federal immigration authorities to stop detaining individuals based purely or partially on their apparent race or ethnicity, accented English or Spanish speech, presence at specific locations, or types of employment. Judge Frimpong emphasized that these factors, alone or combined, cannot justify reasonable suspicion of immigration law violations.

Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard requiring law enforcement to have specific, articulable facts indicating that an individual has been, is currently, or will soon be engaged in criminal activity. By relying improperly on factors like race, language, or work location, immigration agents violate the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Furthermore, selectively targeting individuals based on their race or ethnicity also breaches the Fifteenth Amendment's guarantee against racial discrimination, infringing upon individuals' constitutional rights.

A second TRO requires the federal government to ensure that anyone held by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) can access legal visitation and make confidential, unmonitored calls to their attorneys. This follows incidents in Los Angeles, beginning June 6, where attorneys attempting to visit clients detained at a federal building faced interference, including being sprayed with an unidentified chemical that caused irritation to their eyes, noses, and throats.

Judge Frimpong granted the preliminary injunctions after concluding the plaintiffs met the stringent legal standards required. The court found that the plaintiffs demonstrated their claims would likely succeed, faced irreparable harm without the injunctions, the balance of equities favored them, and that granting relief served the public interest.

The judge and both parties agreed on fundamental constitutional protections, affirming that all individuals, regardless of immigration status, hold rights under the Fourth and Fifteenth Amendments. The ruling explicitly condemns the legality of roving patrols based solely on race or appearance, warrantless detention without consent or reasonable suspicion, and the denial of access to legal counsel.

In reaction, Tom Homan, known as the "Border Czar," defended immigration agents’ practices by highlighting training on "reasonable suspicion," asserting that agents evaluate the totality of circumstances, including location, occupation, and physical appearance.

However, Mohammad Tajsar, senior staff attorney for the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, underscored the ruling's importance, stating, "No matter the color of their skin, what language they speak, or where they work, everyone is guaranteed constitutional rights to protect them from unlawful stops."

The lawsuit arose in response to targeted ICE raids and subsequent interference with legal counsel at the federal detention center located at 300 North Los Angeles Street, spurring attorneys and immigrant rights advocates to challenge the government's tactics in court.